How to deal with Global Warming


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

(Moralist) Greg wrote:

When we built on land that was adjacent to previously built homes, we chose the style of one of the adjacent homes (Spanish) so as to harmoniously blend in with what was already there.

end quote

That is a wise, esthetic decision, Greg. Frank Lloyd Wright for example, has the rep of doing the outlandish, but I disagree.

Peter Reidy wrote in “Wright and Rand:”

Buildings and their sites. A foremost principle of Wright's aesthetic is fittedness to the site: a building ought to follow the shape of the earth and convince the viewer that neither this building nor this piece of ground could have come about without the other. We read of Taliesin:

I knew well by now that no house should ever be on any hill or on anything. It should be of the hill, belonging to it, so hill and house could live together each the happier for the other... . The lines of the hills were the lines of the roofs. The slopes of the hills their slopes, the plastered surfaces of the light wood-walls, set back into shade beneath broad eaves, were like the flat stretches of sand in the river below and the same in color, for that is where the material that covered them came from. (An Autobiography [henceforth A], in vol. 2, Collected Writings, New York: Rizzoli, 1992, pp. 224-27.)

end quote

So, “distinctively blending in” is not an oxymoron. It has the affect of being pleasing to the eye. A skyscraper would not blend in nor would a block house, (or a gas station.) Where I live we are too far apart to comprise a neighborhood, but the two story farm house is gradually giving way to the single story ranch house. I have always liked the Spanish architectural influence, and I would never throw myself under the wheels of the juggernaut to create what is an eye sore to my neighbors.

I remember my parents’ last neighbors who moved into the neighborhood before they moved back east which could be called, “Motorcycle Haven.” Block and tackle with car motors hanging in the wind, motorcycle parts all over their yards, and guys in their front yards sitting on couches, drinking beer. They did not match the neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greg wrote:

The weather pattern the United States is currently experiencing is classic Ice Age climate of frigid higher latitudes and drought lower latitudes. This is now the new normal so we had better adapt to it.

end quote

And we will, with science and clear thinking. Techniques for “ice berg” farming have been around since the 1970’s. To affect local supplies a Saudi was going to use several tugs to pull a ‘sun shaded’ iceberg just offshore where it would be grounded and a set of pipes would collect the melting ice water and pipe it inland. It was feasible and cost affective but never brought to fruition.

There are several techniques for localized “rainmaking” and the cheap by product coal dust, was going to be periodically sprayed by aircraft over Siberian ice, increasing world wide precipitation. Globally there are probably better ways to affect climate to suit humans. Here in America it will be done on a state by state basis with some federal funding.

FAKE AP Wire March 10, 2012, Peter Taylor.

Under a joint agreement with Somalia and Ethiopia, Israel yesterday began an engineering project connecting the Red Sea with the Great Rift Valley. Large portions of Ethiopia will be submerged into one large lake yet to be named. The project will take a year and is expected to change the climate in that portion of Africa making it more temperate and rainy. The range of crops that could then be grown in Ethiopia are expected to contribute to that country’s being able to feed its entire, growing population with corn, wheat, and vegetables. The chain of connected lakes that will result are under plans for development as tourist attractions. Gambling resorts and homes for the rich are projected, which will boost Ethiopia’s basic marginal income to those levels found in Europe.

The Project is not without controversy because Israel will be using 36 underground nuclear explosions, 12 which were set off yesterday, to create the link to the Red Sea. Israeli scientists project that though the radiation will last for years, its newest techniques and nuclear materials have a much shorter atomic half life. Little radiation should reach the atmosphere, and the water rushing in will further dampen any nuclear radiation to acceptable levels for human habitation, even immediately next to the shore. A ban will be placed on fish for one year as the radiation levels in them are monitored. The World’s Sea Level is expected to drop by several inches to a foot, which is an added bonus to low lying countries like the Netherlands, Pacific atoll nations and even some American cities like New Orleans.

The United Nations was never consulted about the project but the UN in an emergency session is now debating the affects of the blasts. Iran is claiming this is harassment and a threat to their well-being and peaceful exploration of atomic energy. Israel is once again asking the UN and the United States to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying, “Iran’s time is up. They will either cease nuclear research and open their doors for Israeli verification or we will destroy their facilities and ability to make conventional war against Israel.”

President Obama has called a meeting of his cabinet for tomorrow, Sunday March 11th along with his Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of Congress.

From my inbox today, Feb. 20, 2014:

Rasmussen: 31 percent agree Global Warming, “Is perhaps most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

February 19, 2014

Why Mann vs. Steyn Needs Curry vs. Mann

by Robert Tracinski

Every side in the political debate has a natural tendency to appeal to freedom of speech when they feel threatened—but to ignore (or initiate) threats to the free speech of the other side. My favorite example is from the early 1990s, when the Yeltsin government dispossessed Russia's Communist Party of the vast holdings it had amassed in the decades when it controlled the state. The Communist Party screamed in protest, denouncing the supposed attack on its "property rights and freedom of speech." Which was pretty rich, considering that the Communists had just spent 70 years ruthlessly stamping out everyone else's property rights and freedom of speech.

This tendency is captured in an old expression popularized by Nat Hentoff: free speech for me, but not for thee.

I was reminded of this in coming across a little sidelight to Mann vs. Steyn, the defamation lawsuit filed by scientist-turned-activist Michael Mann in an attempt to suppress the speech of global warming skeptics, starting with conservative writer Mark Steyn.

As I have explained elsewhere Mann is attempting to legally punish any attempt to "question his intellect and reasoning"—that's from the DC Superior Court, which preposterously backed his argument—on the grounds that Mann's scientific claims have been investigated by multiple government panels, which have exonerated him.

This claim, by the way, is already falling apart. As Steven McIntyre explains, one of the examples Mann cites is a British panel that did not actually investigate Mann—its focus was on the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the epicenter of "Climategate"—and in its announcement of its results criticized Mann's methods as "inappropriate" and his results as "exaggerated." At the time, Mann felt so exonerated that he sent harassing e-mails to the scientist who made that remark, demanding a retraction and an apology. Mann then went on to tell the BBC that such a retraction was forthcoming. It wasn't. All of which tells you a great deal about Professor Mann's credibility.

But that's not the main issue. The main issue in the suit is Mann's appeal to authority in the first place. He cites the various government investigations as reasons why, as the DC Superior Court put it, "to question [Mann's] intellect and reasoning is tantamount to a [libelous] accusation of fraud." Mann's goal is to make it a legally punishable offense to question a scientist's honesty or even his thinking method.

If you are criticizing Professor Mann, that is. But if he is criticizing you—well, then, that's a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only should he be vilified for this behaviour but he should lose his doctorate as well!

That'll be the day.

Back when I was young, Mann and a number of others would almost certainly have lost their positions. Being caught in scientific fraud was the kiss of death to a scientific career back then. Today, in some "research" areas, it's a ticket to prestige and praise.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a gripe. I have seen Ba’al, Wikipedia, and others use the term CE (before the current era) or BCE which is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era and I think that is unscientific and religiously inappropriate. There is no need to tick off all other religions or scientists. We should be using BP or “Before The Present.” So, to say “the Sphinx was built around 6000 years Before Christ” would change to “the Sphinx was built around 8000 BP, or before the present.” That is so much more precise and gets religion out of science. Language and understanding would abound.

Interesting concept, Peter. Using your idea how will you identify 2014?

Greg

BP changes one day per day. Not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote:

BP changes one day per day. Not good.

end quote

As does *BC,* but in any system describing time no one really counts the days, hours, or minutes. That would be too cumbersome. Well, a time clock at a job would, and a baby sitter might, but that is beside the point. The Sphinx was built 4500 years ago.

I also think military time is more practicable. When did the incident occur? At nine. 9am or 9pm? 2100 hours (or 9pm.)

And if you ever look at a five day weather forecast it is very confusing that a new day starts at midnight. For weather forecasting purposes if for no other, it would be better to call "a night" or "a day" utilizing the time from sunup to sunup, so you could say it will be raining today and NOT make people wonder if it will stop raining after midnight. They do get around that problem by saying it will be raining overnight, but does everyone understand that? It would take a brave weathergirl to say, when I say it will be raining tonight, then I mean night extends from sundown to sunup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As does *BC,*

Before Christ dating doesn't change because year zero is fixed in time.

but in any system describing time no one really counts the days, hours, or minutes. That would be too cumbersome. Well, a time clock at a job would, and a baby sitter might, but that is beside the point. The Sphinx was built 4500 years ago.

There are some archeologists who would fix that date a lot longer ago, but I get your point..

I also think military time is more practicable. When did the incident occur? At nine. 9am or 9pm? 2100 hours (or 9pm.)

I totally agree. Military time is a far more efficient indicator for determining elapsed time.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

I totally agree. Military time is a far more efficient indicator for determining elapsed time.

end quote

Standardization can be taken too far even if it does have a good purpose. When I was in the military, US military time existed around the globe, so we were “invited” to learn GMT or Greenwich Mean Time. A handy chart would tell us 1600 GMT was 0800 Southeast Asia. Very handy, but that ratio of 1600 to 0800 was made up. I have never used that system since.

Stories on the internet seemed to be geared to whatever your local time is but I am not always sure of that. If you go to a video feed of the Ukrainian President calling his ouster, “a coup” it may say 4pm yesterday, but who knows when it occurred “your time,” and who saw that coming?

When I was younger it seemed astonishing that a “live” feed from somewhere would be during the day light hours but “live” was dark as I watched. I remember Hawaii got TV shows a few days after they aired in the continental US. The video tape or whatever they used back around 1963 was flown over or shipped over. Christmas trees in the Aloha State came over by ship and the needles were already falling off. My first Christmas near the tropics was depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In light of the climate change pajama party the marxists held at the Senate last night with all the assinine statements made by "Little Dick Durban," the imbecile Senator from Connecticutt, the likes of Chuckie "Schmuckie" Schumer and the dwarf Senator Boxer, etc as to no responsible scientist disputes man made climate change, check this petition out:

"31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs:"

Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

This link has a substantial amount of data, names state by state, and...

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.

Article_First_Page_60.png

The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Adam. It is good to know there are rational scientist still existing. That all night-er will garner them no votes. The unemployed were asked about climate change the next day, and they got tight faced and said, get me a job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Adam. It is good to know there are rational scientist still existing.

Peter, did you not know that before? I'm asking because I'm curious as to just how effective the veil of disinformation is in keeping the general populace from knowing about the scientific opposition to climate alarmism.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neanderthals inhabited western Asia and the non-glaciated portions of Europe starting about 230,000 years ago. Modern humans moved into western Asia from Africa less than 100,000 years ago. Modern humans, known as Cro-Magnons, moved into Europe approximately 50-40,000 years ago. The most recent glacial period, the Wisconsin glaciation, reached its maximum extent approximately 21,000 years ago, and ended approximately 12,000 years ago. A warm period, known as the Holocene climatic optimum, followed the ice age. Food crops, including wheat, chickpeas, and olives along with sheep, and goats, were domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean in the 9th millennium BCE, which allowed for the establishment of agricultural settlements. Near Eastern crops spread to southeastern Europe in the 7th millennium BCE. Poppy and oats were domesticated in Europe from the 6th to the 3rd millennium BCE. Agricultural settlements spread around the Mediterranean Basin. Megaliths were constructed in Europe from 4500 – 1500 BCE. A strengthening of the summer monsoon 9000–7000 years ago increased rainfall across the Sahara, which became a grassland, with lakes, rivers, and wetlands. After a period of climatic instability, the Sahara settled into a desert state by the 4th millennium BCE.

Civilization as we know it has flourished during the current interglacial. That last ice age is what separated the neanderthal from the cro mag. The cro mags were able to put their social and technical skills to work to figure out how to survive the Ice. The neanderthals did not make the grade. The disappeared about 30,000 years BP.

We have been spoiled rotten by an interglcaial period of 10-15 thousand years and many believe the climate we now enjoy has been the "normal" climate of Earth. Bzzzzt.... Not true. When the next Big Freeze comes modern homo sapien will be put to as rigorous a challenge as faced neanderthal and cro mag.

Given the accumulated technical skills of over 10,000 years of civilization we probably will make it. I think.... I hope...

Ba'al chatzaf

Frequently, geologists are using the term 'Anthropocene' to describe our present age as one in which human behavior drives large-scale geological factors.

The melting of the ice sheet is due to an unfortunate factor that's frequently overlooked when human-caused global warming is discussed: a huge amount of the heat associated with carbon emissions goes into the oceans.

This, of course, will throw the predicted increase in atmospheric temperatures off (Keeling Curve); but nevertheless it's still there...

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frequently, geologists are using the term 'Anthropocene' to describe our present age as one in which human behavior drives large-scale geological factors.

The melting of the ice sheet is due to an unfortunate factor that's frequently overlooked when human-caused global warming is discussed: a huge amount of the heat associated with carbon emissions goes into the oceans.

This, of course, will throw the predicted increase in atmospheric temperatures off (Keeling Curve); but nevertheless it's still there...

EM

And you of course have a source for this which gives the names and professional qualifications of these geologists?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen wrote:

Peter, did you not know that before? I'm asking because I'm curious as to just how effective the veil of disinformation is in keeping the general populace from knowing about the scientific opposition to climate alarmism.

end quote

Sure. This general populace was being supportive and facetious, sort of like asking Adam, “Did you hear about the scandal involving leaked documents from England’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (dubbed "Climategate" in the media?) And Adam answers “Say what?” So I continue oblivious of his veiled answer of “Of course,” with well, Adam, it began in November 2009 when thousands of emails and other documents were made public. The UK newspaper “The Guardian” . . .

Years ago, Ellen, I enjoying a good read: "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer.

From his book I gleaned one important fact. “Warm” is good for humans. The Global Wormers (joke) do not understand such a basic fact from history and paleontology. You could go back 4 billion years and it would demonstrate that warmth is globally a good thing, but let’s start more recently with some more modern history:

The Roman Warming. (500BC to 535AD) “Good for us!”

Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900) “Cold is bad for us.”

Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300) “Good!”

The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850) “Bad.”

Modern Warming. (1850 to Present) “Good for us!”

Every time we “warm,” we thrive. It’s good hearing from you, Ellen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is warming and there is over-warming. The current warm spell could shut down the Atlantic Conveyor by diluting the salt water of the portion of the Atlantic Ocean between the North East coast of North America and Northeastern Europe (in particular) the British Isles. This could trigger a new round of glacier formation which could elongate into the next Ice Age.

If I had to make bets I would say we are more likely to face an Ice Age rather than turning into the Planet Venus as some of the extreme eco-crazies have predicted. The last cold spell started about 1300 c.e. and lasted nearly 500 years. During that time people walked across the Thames River during winter and Hans Brinker broke out his Sliver Skates to ice skate on the canals of Amsterdam. If we tripped off an Ice Age we will be Put To The Test. Fortunately we have nuclear technology and we could generate gobs of electrical power to keep our arses warm in the winter. It really would not take that much to flip the climate system from Hot to Cold. Ten to twenty bad winters accompanied by as many short, wet cool summers and we are on our way.

How can that be, you might ask. Answer: Ice reflects the light and heat of the sun, so once we got enough ice through glacier expansion that would trip off a positive feedback to lower the temperature even further. The underlying dynamics of climate change is non-linear and feedbacks can produce major changes in relatively short time. Back when the Little Ice Age started children who had lived during warm summers and short winters grow up to freeze their fannies off, and some of them die of cold and hunger since the change in weather affected agricultural output.

I am an Old Guy, but my grandchildren may live to see a much colder world than we have now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:

It really would not take that much to flip the climate system from Hot to Cold.

end quote

“The Day after Tomorrow?”

From Wikipedia:

“The Day after Tomorrow” . . . . Later, Jack presents his findings on global warming at a United Nations conference, but fails to convince diplomats or Vice President of the United States Raymond Becker. However, Professor Terry Rapson of the Hedland Climate Research Centre in Scotland believes in Jack's theories. Several buoys in the North Atlantic simultaneously show a massive drop in the ocean temperature, and Rapson concludes that melting polar ice has started to disrupt the North Atlantic current. He contacts Jack, whose paleoclimatological weather model shows how climate changes caused the first Ice Age. His team, along with NASA’s meteorologist Janet Tokada, builds a forecast model.

end quote

The movie had some bad scientific reviews but I really liked it. If humans are causing global warming which may in turn cause global cooling and an ice age, then it would be within humanity’s power to reverse the process. I’ve mentioned the millions of tons of coal dust, just sitting in piles, that could be spread over ice, causing more absorbance of photons and heat. If it is an inevitable process barely impacted upon by humans then we would need time to adjust. The bread basket would move south. Indoor Malls would begin to proliferate, etc.

Global Warming and Cooling hysteria has been around since around 1969, which is about 45 years. Before the Senate Commu-crats filibuster and “all night-er” no one gave a damn, and its lack of coverage shows that nobody believes that bs anyway. I saw that Gov Christy told Tesla to go away but I am sure the Hollywood crowd will continue to believe in and buy eco friendly cars, homes, and devices. What would be a good plan of action? I heard that Kickstarter’s project for a lunar elevator raised three times its needed funding for planning, so perhaps a plan could be formulated for all types of climate change too.

Climate change is primarily caused by the sun’s cycles, cosmic rays, and vulcanization on earth. I think that if we have evidence of climate change, human’s could prepare for it within 20 years. Any suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is primarily caused by the sun’s cycles, cosmic rays, and vulcanization on earth. I think that if we have evidence of climate change, human’s could prepare for it within 20 years. Any suggestions?

Don't forget cloud formation. Clouds have a distinct effect on earth's climate. Lots of clouds means less sunlight coming in. Few clouds mean lots of sunlight coming. See -The Chilling Stars- by Hans Svensmark. It turns out that cloud formation is affected by secondary and tertiary cosmic ray input to the upper atmosphere. The anthropological global warming advocates dislike this hypothesis intensely since it make warming and cooling more a matter of natural effects than human activity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global cooling Eva get it right. Yes the arctic Ice is thinning but the Antarctic has packed on 17'.

Wow, Jules that would mean that Mother Earth has a balancing mechanism.

But that cannot be!

Al Gore and his facile student Eva knows better than the bioshere of the Earth.

How could you doubt her?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

It is truly sad.

Clearly she has a good mind. However, the infantile spelling of America with the "k," is frankly, sickenlng.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

So at least we can agree that you amerikans have the wherewithal to look up 'anthropocene yourselves on Wiki, and perhaps 'Keeling curve, global ocean warming' as well? Progress, at last!

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

So at least we can agree that you amerikans have the wherewithal to look up 'anthropocene yourselves on Wiki, and perhaps 'Keeling curve, global ocean warming' as well? Progress, at last!

EM

Such a petulent child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now